Tooth-implant connection with fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous arches. A retrospective cohort study over an 11.8 year observation period.
Journal
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry
ISSN: 1989-5488
Titre abrégé: J Clin Exp Dent
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101603132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
28
12
2020
accepted:
16
04
2021
entrez:
26
7
2021
pubmed:
27
7
2021
medline:
27
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The fixed tooth-implant connection remains a controversial issue. This private practice-based retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a contemporary fixed partial denture (FPD) design for connecting natural teeth and implants (TI-FPD), over an 11.8 years observation period. The data of 91 partially edentulous patients (44 males and 47 females, mean age of 47.7 years) treated with a newly designed TI-FPD retained on 1 implant and 1 natural tooth were analyzed retrospectively. Teeth were covered with electroformed copings and a CAD/CAM made bridge was fixed over the abutments with provisional cement. Two different implant systems were used: Camlog (N=22; anterior areas) and Straumann tissue level (N=69; posterior areas). The survival rate for both implants and teeth was 100%. 19/21 (90%, 95%CI 82-95%), 16/21 (66%, 95%CI 66-84%), and 16/21 (66%, 95%CI 66-84%) patients were free of biological complications after 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years post-loading, respectively. 23/35 (90%, 95%CI 54-74%), 21/35 (61%, 95%CI 50-70%), and 21/35 (61%, 95%CI 50-70%) were free of technical complications following 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years post loading, respectively. Despite limitations of the study, the findings demonstrated that the use of a recently designed TI-FPD could be used for the tooth-implant connection in cases of partial edentulism and this may widen the treatment modalities by reducing the cost and need for extensive bone tissue augmentations. Further controlled longitudinal studies with larger patient groups are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The fixed tooth-implant connection remains a controversial issue. This private practice-based retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a contemporary fixed partial denture (FPD) design for connecting natural teeth and implants (TI-FPD), over an 11.8 years observation period.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
The data of 91 partially edentulous patients (44 males and 47 females, mean age of 47.7 years) treated with a newly designed TI-FPD retained on 1 implant and 1 natural tooth were analyzed retrospectively. Teeth were covered with electroformed copings and a CAD/CAM made bridge was fixed over the abutments with provisional cement. Two different implant systems were used: Camlog (N=22; anterior areas) and Straumann tissue level (N=69; posterior areas).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The survival rate for both implants and teeth was 100%. 19/21 (90%, 95%CI 82-95%), 16/21 (66%, 95%CI 66-84%), and 16/21 (66%, 95%CI 66-84%) patients were free of biological complications after 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years post-loading, respectively. 23/35 (90%, 95%CI 54-74%), 21/35 (61%, 95%CI 50-70%), and 21/35 (61%, 95%CI 50-70%) were free of technical complications following 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years post loading, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Despite limitations of the study, the findings demonstrated that the use of a recently designed TI-FPD could be used for the tooth-implant connection in cases of partial edentulism and this may widen the treatment modalities by reducing the cost and need for extensive bone tissue augmentations. Further controlled longitudinal studies with larger patient groups are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34306529
doi: 10.4317/jced.58170
pii: 58170
pmc: PMC8291158
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e659-e668Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2021 Medicina Oral S.L.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
J Oral Implantol. 2014 Jun;40(3):271-9
pubmed: 24914913
J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29 Suppl 3:197-212; discussion 232-3
pubmed: 12787220
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Dec;15(6):625-42
pubmed: 15533124
Implant Dent. 2019 Dec;28(6):528-536
pubmed: 31219945
J Oral Implantol. 2012 Apr;38(2):194-200
pubmed: 21091344
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Feb;12(1):26-34
pubmed: 11168268
Implant Dent. 2019 Oct;28(5):490-499
pubmed: 31149914
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Aug;22(4):523-532
pubmed: 32524744
Int J Prosthodont. 2008 Mar-Apr;21(2):131-7
pubmed: 18546767
J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Oct;94(4):313-20
pubmed: 16198167
Int J Prosthodont. 1999 May-Jun;12(3):216-21
pubmed: 10635188
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Jul;28(7):849-863
pubmed: 27350419
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Oct;12(5):441-9
pubmed: 11564103
J Oral Implantol. 2012 Aug;38(4):424-34
pubmed: 21073343
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Nov-Dec;14(6):819-23
pubmed: 10612918
J Biomech. 2006;39(3):453-63
pubmed: 16389085
J Oral Rehabil. 2008 Jan;35 Suppl 1:44-54
pubmed: 18181933
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Nov;30(11):1134-1141
pubmed: 31444828
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Dec;15(6):643-53
pubmed: 15533125
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010 Mar 01;15(2):e387-94
pubmed: 19767705
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018 Mar/Apr;38(2):217-224
pubmed: 29447314